Right-to-work laws support by workers all about getting something for nothing!

[IndependentinWis]

Some workers support the right to work laws. The reason is simple, they want something for nothing like most Americans. They know the union have gotten them better wages and benefits over the years, but now they think they can get the same for nothing. Just think how supprised they are when without the union they lose both wages and benefits, Surprise, suprise, surprise. This is what is happening in Wisco, but with the public employees. Many public employees supported Walker in getting rid of the public employee unions as they wanted something for nothing. Now these same employees are complaining when they see their wages either frozen or reduced and their benefits either cut or eliminated. I mean, what the h*ll did they expect. They were told what would happen and still they would not believe. I heard many say that they would be better off without their unions. Well, as I always say, live and learn. Just so you know, I was in management and had to deal with unions for over thrity years.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

And what have the unions gotten for Hostess workers and the steel industry in this country? A loss of jobs, a loss of income, a loss of their homes because now that they are out of work, the worker can no longer meet their mortgage payments. It's great being a union member these day.

ORR

 

[Dino]

How do these union members, mostly Democrats, have the audacity to oppose people who "want something for nothing"?

Isn't that amazingly hypocritical?

Our entire tax code is based on this system and the Dems only wish for more to be free of the income tax burden, which should fall on the "rich".

These irate union workers sound absolutely ridiculous and clueless.

 

[Bluedog]

Part of the problem stems from the argument that if the union was that good, people would want to pay their dues.
Also most people have different definition of what constitutes freedom. I have no problem paying union dues, but I would still appreciate the option to do so. In addition, is this an issue where if the majority of voters do not object why not let the elections determine that. If the majority of the public objected to some/all parts of PPACA and passage was allowed,should we not apply the same line of reasoning here.

My two cents.

 

[anti.reptile]

I thought the left was all for freedom of choice. You can choose to have an abortion in this country , why not have the freedom to choose if you want to sent your money to unions?

 

[Dino]

You don't deserve the right to choose, you deserve to get your ass kicked in by thugs apparently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_F3oev06i0

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

The left only reconizes the right (freedom) to choose when you choose the option they present to you. If you choose something else they send their goon squad after you. Hey lefties, how's Stalin doing these days?

ORR